Enlarging lenses

[peter_mann3]

This is a true geezer question. The lens I like to use for

enlarging 35mm negs has a focal length between 60mm and 80mm. The

largest print I normally make is 11x14. I am presently using a 75mm

f4.5 Kodak Enlarging Ektar from about 1950, maybe earlier. It seems

very good from f5.6 to f11, particularly f5.6 and f8. What are your

opinions, in specifics, of what, if any, modern lenses, such as

Schneider, Rodenstock, el-Nikkor would exceed this Ektar in quality

(sharpness). I do only black and white enlarging. And if there

should actually be another geezer out there who has actually used

the enlarging Ektars, I'd be especially thrilled to hear.

[roger_michel]

there is a lot on this in the archives. i will sum up:

 

1. you can buy a best quality APO lens from rodenstock or schneider (avoid el nikkor) for less than any leica M lens.

 

2. you can save a couple of hundred by buying a lesser quality lens from either of these companies.

 

3. this would be insane since the quality of every print you make is affected by the quality of your enlarging lens. why spend big money on leica glass and then enlarge it thru a second rate lens -- especially where the best lens is cheap in leica terms??

 

4. erwin puts (and others) hae noted huge sample to sample variation in enlarging lenses from all mfrs. decentering is a big problem. get b&h to send you three of whatever lens you pick. make test prints. send back two.

 

5. don't let anyone tell you that an APO lens is irrelevant for mono work. apart from increased chromatic correction, APO quality lenses typically have higher performance in all areas of correction.

 

6. don't bother trying to make high quality old school prints unless you align (and regularly realign) your enlarger. the versa dynamics laser tool makes this a snap -- and it's cheap. buy one at the same time as you buy your new lens.

 

7. your enlarger lens upgrade is way overdue.

 

8. a used high quality lens is almost always better than a new mediocre lens.

[johann_fuller]

Better enlarging lenses work better at wider apertures - this means they are razor sharp right to the corners at one stop down from maximum. Your exposure times are reduced and this means you work quicker. Less good lenses have to be stopped right down to get the corners sharp but this in turn means that diffraction occurs within the lens and you loose overall sharpness. If you want to show film grain in focus right to the corners - you need a good lens. Back in the day when I worked in a pro-lab rodenstock lenses were the best, schnieder where close but perceptibly not as good and EL Nikkor were not even close. In a lab speed is essential and short exposure times were mandatory.

[bill_carson]

Hi Peter: Don't ever kid yourself for a minute into believing the spam that el Nikkor enlarging lenses are not in the running: Quite the contrary, they are the best and at prices that don't out-Leica Leica! Keep in mind that you are essentially reading a flat surface and projecting onto a parallel flat surface -- so why the need for all the fancy corrections (if they really exist?). Good Luck with your elNikkor 50mm-f.2.8 lens. Bill

[dan_brown4]

I picked up a late model Rodenstock Rodagon 50/2.8 for $35 at

the local camera shop. Digital is doing wonders for the cost of

darkroom equipment ;-) Outstanding performance, even wide

open, for my B&W work. I highly recommend this lens.

[roger_michel]

"so why the need for all the fancy corrections, if they really exist."

 

did that come from the same magazine article that some pundit quoted yesterday for the proposition that "sharper" leica lenses can often better MF in print sizes up to 16x20. sometimes you don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[ray .]

Yes, there's no point in having a good camera lens if your enlarger can't match it. My own experience with testing is that a Schneider Componon-S is visibly better than a cheaper Schneider, and that a Leitz Focotar on a V-35 enlarger easily beats the Componon. I do print 12x18 image size though, which shows differences in sharpness more than with smaller prints. Even illumination is another key benefit of a good enlarging lens, eliminating much of the need to burn in corners and edges and making printing easier. I'm not familiar with the lens you have but from the other responses and its age I'd assume it's outdated.

[lee_shively]

Everybody has an opinion, it seems.

 

I don't use lenses longer than 50mm with 35mm negs but I have had excellent results from a 75mm El-Nikkor years ago and an 80mm Schneider Componon currently when printing medium format. When I print 35mm, I will use a 50/2.8 El-Nikkor if I need a wider aperture but mostly I use an ancient 5cm f/4.5 Leitz Focotar.

 

My two cents.

[ray .]

Hey Dan, that sounds like you may have gotten a great deal. Peter, Dan's post reminds me that you may want to check for used lenses on ebay or elsewhere, since there are many people who've gone digital selling good used darkroom equipment at a bargain.

[trooper]

I predict that you'll see quite a dramatic difference with a modern, high grade enlarging lens. I tend to not go over 11X14 in medium format and 8X10 in 35mm so I'm not extending expectations as much as some folks, perhaps. Between my personal darkroom work and and work-related experiences, I would say that you will easily see the extra performance by going to something in the Componon S , Nikkor or Rodagon series. Some of the old Ektars can be remarkably capable and not too discernable from the 4 element modern offerings (Componar, Rogonar, etc). Everything is going for such low prices now, that there's little excuse for tolerating an enlarging lens bottleneck in your quality trail. I recently added APO Schneiders to my darkroom and at the magnifications I use, I can't really say I gained in performance over my Rodagons but if I make some big stuff, I imagine they will show their advantage. A good alignment tool will likely gain as much for many people as a lens upgrade, though!

[roland_schmid]

Peter - I've worked with many different enlarging lenses and made and make many 11x14 and also larger prints for exhibitions. I've tried Apo-Rodagons, Componons, Focotars, Meoptas, Polish and Russian lenses and EL-Nikkors. The best I've ever tried for 35mm is the EL-Nikkor 2.8/63mm lens, a really stunning lens. The EL-Nikkor 2.8/50mm is also very good. The biggest disappointments for 35mm, in proportion to their price and reputation, were the Focotar 4.5/60mm and the Apo-Rodagon 2.8/50mm (although the Apo-Rodagon 4/90mm is a really outstanding lens - things seem to be really complex in this matter...)

I don't know the Kodak lenses, they are rare here in old Europe.

Regards

[douglas k.]

I've printed as large as 40x60 inches from 35mm negs, with extremely sharp results (in a portrait, each eyelash is perfectly delineated, veins in eyes clearly visible, etc.), with a 50mm EL-Nikkor. And the negs were shot with a $50 Nikkor normal lens, which probably makes me a philistine on this forum(!)

 

As long as you're using a good modern enlarging lens, I really doubt you'll see much difference between the Nikkor and German APO lenses. Remember that enlarging lenses are probably easier to design and manufacture than camera lenses -- though they benefit from flat-field correction, they don't have to contend with the same sorts of flare, they don't have to be corrected across the aperture range (since you typically use one at its optimum aperture -- usually about one stop down -- and leave it there), they don't have to be corrected across such a wide focussing range (they're optimized for common repro ratios), and of course bokeh is a non-issue.

[david11]

I will have to agree with Roland; the 63mm f2.8 el-nikkor lens is outstanding. I have used Schneider and Rodenstock enlarging lenses with success, but believe that the 63 is as good or better than any that I have used. I have no experience with the ektars.

[al_kaplan1]

I picked up one of the first available 50mm f/2.8 El Nikkors back in 1962 and I've been printing with it ever since. For years I did what little 120 printing I needed with a 75mm f/3.5 Spiratone. When I finally broke down and bought an 80mm Schneider Compononon to do justice to my Hasselblad negatives I made an interesting discovery. The Spiratone lens was sharp enough to make good prints up to 16x20 with a nice smooth look to them. The Compononon was capable of sharply resolving the grain of Plus-X or FP4, destroying that nice smooth look. For portraits the Spiratone was the better choice. I still have both lenses.

[nicholas_t.]

I did a test once with a late model 80 f4 Rodagon, 80 El Nikkor N 5.6 and an 90 Axinon 5.6 (?). I could not tell the differance in sharpness and tonality (stopped down) at a print size of 24x30in! The Rodagon and the Nikkor are 6 element lenses and the little french Axinon - a four element beauty! The enlarging ektars are reputed to be good lenses, some are heliar designs (?) from memory.

[mike dixon]

"Stopped down" is a key point--it's not surprising that you'd see

little difference among the lenses when they're stopped down. A

big advantage of modern enlarging lenses is that they're typically

optimized for about one stop down from wide open, so your

losses to diffraction are minimized. With big enlargements (high

magnifications), diffraction is your biggest enemy (assuming

proper alignment and such).

 

Any of the lenses you mentioned should, when used properly, be

a significant step up from the Ektar you've been using. I don't get

too worked up about the ultimate resolution and highest contrast

in a camera lens, but for an enlarging lens those things (along

with flatness of field and even illumination) are vital.

[roland_schmid]

...the alignement of the enlarger is very, very important...

[nicholas_t.]

I should have said: all the lenses were stopped down to F8. One stop for the Nikkor and Axinon lens, 2 for the Rodenstock. So, the test favored the Rodenstock. I suppose my point is that they all proved good enough for my use.

[richard_ilomaki]

Peter

 

There are many factors in enlarging lens quality. Many lenses today are "outsourced", or at least the glass is, just like Leica camera lenses, so different lenses may in fact come from the same pot of glass in Korea or China: Seagull make lens elements for just about everybody.

 

One must work hard to make a bad lens thse days with computer design and uniform high quality formultion, casting, grinding and polishing available all over the world.

 

I have, or used, Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, "Durst", Russian (Vega) and Chinese Seagull lenses for 35 & MF and the "best" for sharpness and tonality IMHO is the 50 mm 2.8 Vega I got for $19 Cdn. The only Leitz Focotar I have seen up close was so badly fogged with fungus it was unusable, except as a well diffused source for contact prints.

 

Ansel Adams recommends a 75 mm lens for 35 mm negs as the flatness of field is better in the centre of a larger image, but of course he wrote that 20-30 years ago and there has been much progress since.

 

2 cents worth!!

 

Cheers

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 75mm f4.5 Kodak Enlarging Ektar is a tessar type lens of 4 elements and excellent at the center. The "newer" 6 element Rodagon, Componon; and 6 element El Nikkors will be better at the far edge; and only abot the same at the center. Ther is alot of BS mentioned above in this thread; and alot of good info too. <BR><BR>We tested all the three non-Kodak designs; in 6 element configuration; for a commercail check sorter camera. There was more variation between serial numbers than the 3 brands of 6 element designs.....We designed the camera around 2 brands of lenses; JUST to give the ppurchaseing dept pricing leverage; and not due to performance.......<BR><BR>Using the APO enlarging lenses will gain a marginal increase; and a steep increase in price......Unless one has exceptional negatives; and real flat carriers; the boost is lost; the boost is just in ones ego.........For microfilming of checks; the APO lens did nothing in performance; thus we used the more common Componon; Rodagon or 6 element El Nikkors.......<BR><BR>Using your 75mm F4.5 Ektar for 35mm uses the best part of the "tessar type" performance....; using a shorter 50mm Ektar would be worse; because the lens is being used over a wider angle.....Thus a 50mm design needs to be a better 6 element design; just to match the 75mm lenses edge performance...<BR><BR>My circa 1946 127mm F4.5 Ektar at dead center at its best aperture resolves 80 line pairs/mm at 1:10 magnification; BETTER than my mint/new Schneider Componon 135mm F5.6 at its best aperture......<BR><BR>All the Ektars I have used are super sharp at the center; the newer models will add nothing in sharpness at the center; and would probably test less in performance at the center; and ALOT better at the far edges.......unless YOUR negatives have excellent edge sharpness; the effect of the new lens might be nill.............<BR><BR>SCOOT a sharp negative over; so the center of the 24x36 frame is now at the edge of the 24x36 negative holder.....This will show your lenses sharpeness alot better.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The best lens for 24x36mm 35mm I have tested is an old 60mm F5.6 Schneider Componon; a pre S model....at F11; two stops stopped down..........<BR><BR>ALL the enlarging lenses I have tested have benefited alot in the corner performance when stopping down about two stops.....In PRODUCTION TESTING; with enlarging or shooting many negatives; the 1 stop down SOMETIMES is slightly better; sometimes is worse than a 2 stopdown.......Here the negative flatness is coming into play from exposure to exposure; when 1 stop down; and alot less when 2 stops down..........

[nicholas_t.]

"The Heliar Type... 2-inch and 3 inch Enlarging Ektars"<p/>

Rudolf Kingslake (Director of Optical Design, Eastman Kodak Co.), Lenses in Photography, Case-Hoyt, NY, 1951, p. 129

[kelly_flanigan1]

I agree; the 50 and 75mm Kodak Enlarging Ektars are 5 element "Heliar" lens designs; and are very good performers......